The Justification of the Bombing on Syria by the United States of America

The justification of the bombing on Syria by The United States of America

Julia Overbeek

INTL 2030

Dr. Russel

April 4th, 2017 shocked the world when 86 people, including 28 children were killed, and much more wounded in an attack by chemical weapons (Global center for the responsibility to protect, 2017). This tragedy happened in the town of Khan-Shakykhun in the Idlib province where opposition was still in power (2017). Eye-witnesses, as well as cameras captured the horrors that took place that day in Syria and the story went viral soon after (2017). The one held responsible for the attack is the Syrian government. The organization for the prohibition of Chemical Weapons Joint investigation Mechanism has determined the guilty party (2017; CWC treaty). The use of any chemical weapons is seen as a war crime since the passing of a resolution in the UN security council in 2013 (2017). The Syrian and Russian government have denied having to do anything with the attack, but a United States official has stated that the Russian government has helped the Syrian government cover up chemical attacks (McKernan, 2017). The Russian government answered on the attack by accusing  the enemies of the Syrian president to rush to judgment (Kingsley & Barnard, 2017).

April 7th,  2017 shocked the world again when U.S. forces conducted a missile strike against a Syrian Air Force airfield (U.S government, Defense, 2017). 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles were launched from two destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea. The target were specifically aircraft shelters, petroleum storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense system and radars (2017). The United States had reacted to the Chemical Attack with military force and was prepared to defend their decision against the judgment from the world. Earlier Russia and China had vetoed a resolution to impose sanctions on Syria after the accusations of their use of Chemical Weapons (Reuters, 2017). The Security council got accused of being impotent to halt the use of chemical weapons and has received a lot of criticism before and since the vetoes on the sanction on the Syrian Government (2017).

The question asked by the world after the attack by the United States was if the US was in the right to intervene with military action. The answer to the question in international law is no, but that does not mean the United States is entirely at fault. Many previous conflicts, resolutions, treaties and events have made this topic very interesting, but also very complex. While there is also the question if Donald Trump had the authority to approve this attack, this paper will only focus on international law, not domestic law.

The United Nations can make use of force if this is authorized by the Security Council (Dorf, 2017; Savage, 2017). Because of the veto powers in the Security Council, specifically by Russia and China, the use of force, or any intervention in general, will not pass the Security Council. While the veto powers in the Security Council have received a lot of critics, this is still the set-up of the security council and cannot be ignored. Changing the Security Council is nearly impossible as the Security Council needs to approve alternations in the Council. Most, if not all, veto powers will use their veto-power to make sure they do not lose this power. Many experts in the legal field have proposed justifying the use of military force if certain criteria were met (Dorf, 2017). The attack by The United States did not meet this criteria as it was a unilateral attack, in contrast to a multilateral attack which could be considered legal (2017). However, the Security Council has said to impose measures if chemical weapons were used in Syria (Savage, 2017). While this can feel like a justification for the United States to use force, measures do not necessarily mean the use of force, but can also be sanctions on the country. Another reason a member of The United Nations can use force is in the case of self-defense (Savage, 2017). Syria has not asked for help nor attack the United States or one of its allies directly. This does not give The United Nation a justified reason to attack the Syrian Government (2017).

Another aspect that makes the case especially complicated is the fact that there were not supposed to be any chemical weapons in the hands of the Syrian Government. In 2013 a resolution was passed in the security council that was supposed to result in the destroying of all these chemical weapons (security council Res. 2118, 2013). The Syrian Arab Republic signed a protocol that prohibited the use of chemical weapons in 1968 and was already under fire for the use of chemical weapons in 2013 (2013). The resolution states that the Syrian government or any other party in Syria cannot acquire, stockpile, retain, transfer or use any chemical weapons and forces them to corporate in the removal of the chemical weapons (2013). While this seems like a failure of the United Nations, the responsibility was actually given to the Russian Government and the United States has judged their failure to secure the weapons (US government. State, 2017). While this does not affect the lawfulness of the attack by The United States this does show the controversially of the events that are happening in Syria. The United States claims to have intelligence in Syria that allows them to know what is really going on in Syria as detailed as the place the chemical weapons were stored at before used (US government. State, 2017). These statements make the attack even more dangerous as not only the relationship with The Syrian Government is being harmed, but also the relationship with the Russian Government.

While most people look at the Security Council, some also say that because of R2P the United States did have a reasonable reason to attack the government of Syria (Centre of the Responsibility to Protect; Tafuri, 2017). The Responsibility to Protect obligates states to protect populations against mass atrocity crimes (Centre of the Responsibility to Protect). Many argue that because The United Nations did not take any action The United Nations their attack was justified. This is incorrect as the third pillar of R2P states that appropriate collective action must be taken, it also states that it has to be in accordance with the UN Charter. Also The United Nations their attack was not collective and most important, action does not mean military force. While R2P does state that something had to be done and sanctions were not getting passed the Security Council, it does not justify the use of illegal force to enforce R2P.

There are other cases in which under different circumstances force was used without permission of the United Nations. One of these is a fairly unknown case of Nicaragua and another is the famous case of Kosovo. The United States under the Clinton administration approached the attack as a collective self-defense of the neighbors of Kosovo (Bellinger, 2017). The attack on Kosovo was successful and was performed by nineteen NATO countries (Koh, 2016). The situation was fairly different from the situation at this moment but is often referred to when looking into the legality of the attack by The United States on the government of Syria (2016). The case of Nicaragua was brought to the international court of justice in 1986 by Nicaragua. The United States was denounced for military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA, 1986). The United States justified the activities with collective self-defense, but this was rejected during the case and was said to have violated the sovereignty of the state of Nicaragua (1986). This case is also similar to the case of The United States bombing the government of Syria and shows that the international court of justice is known to condemn similar actions.